In common law conspiracy, are preparatory acts sufficient to satisfy the overt act requirement?

• A. Yes; an overt act is required, and preparatory acts are sufficient
• B. No; mere agreement suffices
• C. Yes; only the meeting of minds counts
• D. No; conspiracy requires no acts

Answer: (A)

In common law conspiracy, there must be an overt act beyond mere agreement. That overt act can be something preparatory—anything that shows the conspirators are moving toward carrying out the plan, not just talking about it. So acts like meeting to plan, scouting a target, securing funds, or obtaining equipment can satisfy the overt act requirement because they advance the conspiracy toward its goal, even though they aren’t the completed crime by themselves. This is why preparatory acts are sufficient: they prove movement from thought to action in furtherance of the plot. If there’s only talk and no act advancing the plan, there wouldn’t be a conviction for conspiracy under this standard.